Climate Change, Coming Home: Global Warmings Effect on Populations

Hello all,
I had to read this article for my college Sociology class. I was curious what opinions everyone else has on it. Personally I find it pretty biased,
it does come WorldWatch Institute, so yeah they have an agenda to push. They don't really elaborate too much on the "scientific" validity of their
arguments so I wanted to know what everyone else has to say about it. I remember hearing about "ClimateGate", so are some of their points moot as
far as scientific evidence?

Well, it doesn't really matter what the truth is. For a majority of the world the debate is over; we've gotten tired of trying to ask for more
verifiable proof, and most people don't have the patience to keep asking for something that's never going to be given.
Anthropogenic climate change is the culprit, so say the scientists. Anyone who challenges this is ridiculed and/or reviled for not going with the
flow.
This "verdict" was a predetermined outcome; and one that would support the implementation of Agenda 21 (which is being implemented right now in
cities, towns, and communities all over the world). There's a high probability that it's in your area as well.

The following is probably the most watchable video on the subject. I apologize for the length, but there are no effective short videos for a subject
with a lot of ground to cover. It is made in the USA, but this is happening globally.

Also, I'm sure someone will bring up the fact that Agenda 21 is a non-binding agreement. This fact no longer has any relevance, since the plans are
implemented on a local level. It was never designed to be legislated on a federal or even state level, but rather to inspire the creation of
initiatives. The initiatives spawn federal funding, and the funding goes to local/regional Sustainable Development plans. That's why it's
everywhere. After you watch the video, do a web search for your area + terms like: sustainable development, (your town)2040, and other terms you
learn from the video. You may need to search for closest large metro area.

Climate change is real. I don't think anyone disputes that. It's just that these guys are so obviously trying to exploit the situation for personal
gain. Many aren't, but unfortunately it's the loudest, not the most knowledgeable, that gets the funding.

"The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years," Kröpelin said. "They have never seen so much grazing
land."

"The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable."

I've browsed a lot of scientific forums, and still don't understand much, but something I've noticed is that "climate science" is the only branch
of science that isn't burdened with the expectation of making accurate predictions. Also, they seem dead-set on a huge wealth transfer to 3rd world
nations where money given for orphans and sick kids is misappropriated at epidemic proportions and expect us to eat it up. What a joke.

...my tinfoil hat tells me that they are developing better and better technology to detect heat in the world, and aren't applying the % increase in
heat via those new methods to older observations when the technology wasn't available.

What I find disturbing is how the general population first of all fail to notice that the "scientists" talk about carbon (a solid) rather than carbon
dioxide (a gas), and that they parrot this as if it was fact.

The crux of the MMGW argument is this: that CO2 emissions from transport, industry and power generation are resulting in a warming climate, that would
not have occurred otherwise.

On top of this, they insist there is a consensus that this is the case.

Therein lies the problem. How can they say with such certainty, that our actually very tiny addition to the atmospheric CO2 levels is having a
detrimental impact? THEY CAN NOT, AND THIS IS WHY THEY GO NUTS WHEN THEY ARE PUSHED FOR PROOF.

It is fact that in the past, CO2 levels were higher, and we had a greater bio-diversity than today.

What is disingenuous is how we are told the increase is detrimental, and that we are all going to die if it warms up. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUPPORT THIS
CLAIM.

It is fact that in the past, Greenland (hint is in the name) was so warm, there were forests teeming with life, and they even found evidence of them
having grown grapes there!

Another inconvenient truth

is this: all the oil and gas that is under the Arctic ice sheet came from forests that existed a long time ago. Care
to explain how that might have occurred??

MirageofDeciet, this is what I was thinking. Theres so many other things that contribute to global climate change, that we are only a smaller less
significant part of it.

A dumbing down indeed. This is the second instance I've seen of this sort of thing since starting college, and its only my first semester- I'm sure
the indoctrination just gets more intense from here on in! Unfortunately, a degree is pretty much required in my chosen line of work (flight
instructor/charter pilot).

Hello all,
I had to read this article for my college Sociology class. I was curious what opinions everyone else has on it. Opinions/Comments/Rants?

Sarah DeWeerdt is a science writer

Over the past decade, my writing has appeared in a variety of publications including Nature, World Watch, New
Scientist, and Conservation. I'm especially interested in stories about the natural world and our place in it, but I've also written about genomics,
really tiny computer circuits, and Cuba travel policy, to name a few topics.

In other words,, she's not an expert about global warming,,she just writes about it with her editors agenda in mind

Hey, the main thing is, people make the climate debate a whole lot more complex than it has to be. Here are the facts:

In 1824, a top mathematician and really smart dude by the name of Joseph Fourier noticed that a greenhouse, filled with gases like C02 got hotter than
a greenhouse filled with regular air. It trapped more sunlight. This is a simply verifiable scientific fact. (you can do the experiment in your
backyard) Then the second component was people noticed that coal, gas, and all the rest output C02 into the environment to make it more like that
greenhouse, and they started to ask if the output of all human industry, over hundreds of years, couldn't raise the temp of the entire climate. This
thought too goes way back: Alexander Graham Bell write in 1917 about it:

In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is
the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.”[14][15] Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar
energy.[16]

It resurfaced again in the 1970s, when objective observations noticed we have a higher degree of C02 than any point in history. People started asking
again if we might be heating the world up. Nobody in these days was proposing any "alternative theories" of what WOULD cause the world to heat, they
just called the greenhouse gas people hoaxers. Then the increase in temperature was observed, and all the other theories started to come out AFTER
what the greenhouse gas people had been predicting for hundreds of years.

So its all simple stuff in the end. No one really knows what the big effects will be, but it seems like something is going on. At the same time,
we're seeing an increase in the rates of really destructive storms, so people are thinking that may be connected too. But in the end, again, no one
knows, but common sense points us to the fact that climate change is a reality.

Now there's people who think that the only way to respond to it is with "one world government" and all this, so they stand against the idea that
its real as a way to stand against one world government. But I assure you, one world government won't happen. Kyoto was flawed because it gave China
and India free passes, and China is now the biggest producer of C02 in the world, with the US having cleaned up its act impressively. So there is no
US policy that can change China, because they are independent of us. Also, there is no energy technology yet which can replace fossil fuels, our
economy depends on them totally. So the bottom line is, people need to chill out, and stop trying to change scientific realities to fit their
political/economic desires, because sober minds know there is no one world govt. or replacement for fossil fuels, but we still need to look at these
problems strait on.

OR it could just be the HAARP weather weapon in action. Strange times, these...

Climate change is real. I don't think anyone disputes that. It's just that these guys are so obviously trying to exploit the situation
for personal gain. Many aren't, but unfortunately it's the loudest, not the most knowledgeable, that gets the funding.

Emphasis added.

Do you really mean climate change, or do you really mean MMGW as is often the case when "climate change" is mentioned?

Taking the literal meaning of "climate change", only a complete idiot, or someone suffering a serious mental illness, would think the normal state of
affairs is a static climate. That would be akin to thinking the Earth (for example) is not really spinning on its axis, but is in fact motionless.

This is not a personal attack, but an attack upon the language of MMGW. The meaning of words have been bastardized for the purposes of MMGW
propaganda. The sheeple are not smart enough to appreciate just what has occurred. It is very important that the actual meaning is kept intact when
dealing with the subject, so as to avoid any confusion deliberately sown into the discussion by those with agendas through mis-use and abuse of
language.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.